All too often those in the "chattering class" have tried to convince us that those who change theor minds are somehow inherently dishonest or unrelaible (John Kerry anyone?). This has, in my opinion, really gotten out of hand. In this fictional world, all opinions are set in stone, never to be changed. Bus is great, they say, because he "knows here he stands."
This is braindeadese for: "He doesn't know enough to ever change his opinion."
The most recent recipient of this barb is David Brock of MediaMatters.com. We are supposed to believe that, since Brock once lied for conservatives for a living, that he is thus not reliable as a liberal either.
But this ignores a very basic factL he wrote a lengthy mea culpa in which he basically skewered all of his old friends. Would an insincere con man do that? Better question, would a con man do that just as the GOP was taking over the whole damn government, as it was in 2001?
But this contruction bugs me whenever it is used. There is a whole litany of people that would be instantly dismissed if we were to apply this standard wherein changing your mind is seen as a sign that you aren't honest.
Should we doubt Richard Shelby's (R-AL) conservative credentials because he used to be a Democrat?
Should we doubt Thomas Frank's liberal populism just because he used to be a Republican?
Should we doubt Ralph Hall's (R-TX) conservatism because he was a Democrat for over a decade?
Should we doubt Michael Lind's support for Democrats just because he used to be an associate of William F. Buckley?
The list goes on, but the main point is that it is possible to change one's mind in a lifetime. In fact, I would argue that it happens quite a bit. Yet many pundits and other such low forms of journalistic life continue to act as if it is impossiblr for anyone to honestly change theor mind on anything. One is instantly blasted for committing the cardinal sin of flip-flopping.
Hell, I'll even put it this way: if we transplanted the TV "press" of modern times back to 1964, they would have attacked LBJ for "flip-flopping" on segregation, even though his switch was to the right side.
Since when did foolish consistency become an honored trait in politics?